Game problems that are really Player/DM problems

[Whimsical]

Right before 3rd edition came out when there was a plethora of spaltbooks and players options for 2nd edition, the 2nd ed. D&D game that I was playing in only used the PH, DMG, MM, and the Psionics handbook. That's it. The power to limit your game to the core books is in your hands. Use it if you wish it.

 

[Treebore]

I wish it, but a lot of players don't. They think if it is out there it should be used. I can't really fault them for that. Now, if I have a system that has a lot fewer source books, my players will have a lot fewer expectations to use them, since they will require conversions to use them. So i'll be in far more control of what is available to them.

Like in 3E I found a great way to control useage of PrC's, i require them to come up with a written, well thought out, detailed history of the how and why their "order" came about. I am thinking of making feats taught by orders as well, so that any player who wants to have it available to their character will have to contribute a fair amount of campaign history, created by them.

But by switching to C&C I just build from the ground up.

 

[Andre]

D&D doesn't *force* people to play like wargamers. It doesn't force people to figure their actions like a game of chess. Minis on the table doesn't mean you leave role playing at the door.Quasqueton

Just to be clear, I haven't seen anyone post that the system "forces" players to follow certain play styles. It "encourages" certain styles of play. Big, big difference.

I still remember reading in OD&D that the GM wasn't supposed to give any xp if the monster got away. You only got xp for killing and gold. If a player wanted xp, he had to kill things and take their stuff. Since xp is one of the most desired rewards in the game, players figured out pretty quickly that killing things and taking their stuff was the way to play.

Of course a group can do something different. For example a GM can award story-based xp, or award xp for defeating the monster (not just killing it), and so on. But that means changing the system. The old system encourages killing things by tying xp to killing. The modified system doesn't. Guess what? We're back to system matters.

Does that mean that all complaints about a system are valid? Of course not. Do some folks blame the game when they should look in the mirror instead? Yep. I honestly don't see where our positions are contradictory, unless someone is arguing that the problems are always system or always personal.

 

[Rel]

But by switching to C&C I just build from the ground up.

That may fix your problems for a while but won't you have the same issues once C&C gets enough suppliments to start making it cumbersome? I mean these players are going to demand that you use all of them, won't they? That's what I mean when I say this is a player problem instead of a system problem.

And it is the nature of systems to grow and become more complicated. Roleplaying game companies make money by putting out more books. So if the system is any good at all then you can bet the there will be a crapload of suppliments lined up to follow the core rules.

I believe in trying to please my players but I also know that I can't run a good game if I'm not enjoying it. So I have no qualms about saying up front, "This is the kind of game I'd like to run and these are the sources I'll be allowing for you to use to make characters." If they go along with it then great. If they don't then they can run the game themselves or find somebody else to do it.

Frankly I think that if they can't figure out a way to build a fun and effective character with the core rules then they're either lazy, uncreative or pure powergamers. I'm not really fishing to find those kinds of players anyway.

 

[Treebore]

Maybe, but everything they are talking about doing, aside from their monster and DM book, are modules and campaign settings. So as long as that remains the case I will be in total control of what is available to my players.

Besides, it is the story that keeps players coming back. C&C definitely will allow me to focus on story. After the Castle Keeper book comes out I'll decide what I'll convert from other systems. I definitely want to keep some kind of good skill system.

Another thing we do have to remember, and previous posters to this thread have commented about it, is a DM and their players do have to be on the same page about what they expect to get out of a game. Now if you have a DM who cares more about playing a character with personality and a player or players who are looking for the most powerful PrC and feat combo's, you have a major problem.

So if you want to be a powergamer/tweaker, have a DM who likes doing the same thing. If you want to have engaging story plots that make you want to do something in the game for reasons other than the treasure, find a good story telling DM and have players who like the story more than the next cool feat, or power/ability gained from the next level of their PrC.


So systems defintiely have a big impact on how a game goes. Otherwise I wouldn't prefer Classic Traveller over D20 or GURPS Traveller, or Shadowrun over Cyberpunk. If systems didn't have an impact no one would have cared that 3E D&D came out, they would have stayed with 2E. Of course some have, just like some stayed with 1E and Old D&D. So systems having an impact on a game are a no brainer. Just like the quality of the DM and the players also effects a gaming experience are a no brainer.